Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Potassium Cyanide could be imported against the REP licences under the generic description "electroplating salts and brighteners" notwithstanding its specific mention in Appendix 3, and whether the authorities below were bound by the Tribunal's earlier decision on the same point.
Analysis: The Tribunal held that the earlier decision directly covered the controversy. It reiterated that once the use of Potassium Cyanide as an electroplating salt was accepted, the extent of such use was not decisive, and the generic entry "electroplating salts and brighteners" could include the goods. The Tribunal also held that Paragraph 21(c) of the Import Policy Book did not give Appendix 3 overriding force over Appendix 17, and therefore the specific restricted entry could not exclude the goods from the relevant generic licence entry. The Tribunal further emphasised that subordinate quasi-judicial authorities were bound to follow its earlier ruling and could not disregard it.
Conclusion: The import was held to be permissible under the REP licences, and the orders of the authorities below were set aside in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a generic import licence entry validly covers the goods and the policy does not give overriding force to the restrictive appendix against that licence scheme, the specific restricted listing cannot defeat import under the generic entry; binding precedent of the Tribunal must be followed by subordinate authorities.